On Trump and his administration policies

[OKTexas]

I understand that you hate Obama and the ACA and Liberals... but the ACA was passed by congress. The GOP spent all their energy trying to block it, demonize it, and repeal it. I don't see SCOTUS rewriting anything, that is a lame talking point. It is their job to judge what is constitutional or not within laws and actions. I dont see a problem with a ruling giving clarity about constitutional ways to enforce a law and unconstitutional ways to enforce it. That's what Roberts decision did. Yes the mandate was a penalty, inconstititional to be used as a fine under the commerce clause but deemed constitutional to be a tax penalty under the tax clause. It is what it is

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

Im curious... Do you consider Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs as unconstitutional direct taxes?

It's impossible for me to follow whether he's talking about Medicaid expansion, the individ. mandate as a tax, or what.

page 40 of the opinion discusses taxes. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Of course the dissents have other views, but Roberts is right that one has never been able to avoid a tax merely by choosing NOT to do something. The examples from the Founders days are .. many. But more apt today, if you choose not to marry, you have paid a penalty. Choosing not to procreate .... Choosing not to buy a house. He may be trying to make some bastardized argument that "direct" taxes must be evenly levied, but that was abandoned long ago.

It's just that the sources he uses are pretty wingnut. The Scotus blog has a "plain English" feature.

The examples you provided are all deductions form the income tax which is already levied by law, and allowable by the 16th Amendment. The tax Roberts created is calculated after the requirements of the income tax are satisfied and are triggered by an event other than income. Technically a person is subject to the ACA tax absent any income at all.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

Im curious... Do you consider Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs as unconstitutional direct taxes?

It's impossible for me to follow whether he's talking about Medicaid expansion, the individ. mandate as a tax, or what.

page 40 of the opinion discusses taxes. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Of course the dissents have other views, but Roberts is right that one has never been able to avoid a tax merely by choosing NOT to do something. The examples from the Founders days are .. many. But more apt today, if you choose not to marry, you have paid a penalty. Choosing not to procreate .... Choosing not to buy a house. He may be trying to make some bastardized argument that "direct" taxes must be evenly levied, but that was abandoned long ago.

It's just that the sources he uses are pretty wingnut. The Scotus blog has a "plain English" feature.

The examples you provided are all deductions form the income tax which is already levied by law, and allowable by the 16th Amendment. The tax Roberts created is calculated after the requirements of the income tax are satisfied and are triggered by an event other than income. Technically a person is subject to the ACA tax absent any income at all.
.

If you have no income you are exempt from the penalty, the fee also varies as relative to income. And while my list included deductions they are still direct tax credits and deductions are they not? True the ACA mandate is the first penalty of its kind thats been added to the tax code but wouldn't it be legal under the same precedent that the deductions and credits are legal? After all, the constitution does not say anything about allowing deductions for charity spending or credits for adoptions etc. does it?

 

[Slade3200]

What was rewritten? Show me the old text and the new text.

The courts legislating from the bench is another dishonest talking point. They are interpreting law and stating what the constitution allows and doesn't allow in reference to government laws and actions. Though I have said that the ACA decision is right to be questioned and scrutinized as we don't want there to be too much overreach by the courts

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, Roberts changed an unconstitutional penalty to an unconstitutional direct tax triggered by nothing but failure to maintain minimum health insurance coverage.
That is rewriting the law, without the consent of congress and causing a law to take effect in a form that congress never passed and the president never signed. That's not their job.

The exact same can be said when the court declared congress really intended to pay subsidies for federal exchanges even though the law said differently 9 times.

I don't care if you don't have a problem with the courts legislating form the bench, I do. The Constitution doesn't give them that authority.

BTW do you know that is the exact justification the court used to deny the president a line item veto. They said he would be putting a law in place in a form the congress never voted on.


.

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The word "penalty" replaced by the word "tax" 16 times and the restriction on subsidies was removed 9 times. There are plenty of articles out on the net, feel free to look them up.


.

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

How is altering the primary way a law functions, as defined within the law, not a revision or rewrite?


.

 

[Slade3200]

I've seen articles but I always go back to the actual text of the law and the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. Interpreting whether a "penalty" is a fine under the commerce act or whether it is a tax penalty enforced by the IRS is not rewriting the law it is saying which enforcement actions are constitutional and not.

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

How is altering the primary way a law functions, as defined within the law, not a revision or rewrite?


.

How did Roberts alter the primary way the law functions? Be specific, what was the original text of the law and then how did Roberts change it?

 

[Slade3200]

You really should give law school a go. And I mean that sincerely. Not that what you post actually makes sense, quite the opposite in fact, but you clearly enjoy the effort

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

 

[OKTexas]

If you read the 200 plus pages of the original decision then you got a great education in circular logic. Roberts bent himself in ways never intended by nature or the law to arrive at it. The dissenting opinion is a bit more straight forward and logical. Also feel free to show where the Constitution, as amended, provides for a direct tax for not having government approved health insurance, I've provided evidence it doesn't.


Here's one source.


Changes By The Supreme Court:

68.) Medicaid expansion made voluntary: The court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that it was voluntary, rather than mandatory, for states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138% of poverty. The court rewrote the statute to say the federal government could not block funds for existing state Medicaid programs if states choose not to expand the program. (June 28, 2012)

69.) The individual mandate made a tax: The court also decided that violating the law’s mandate that Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance would not produce a “penalty,” as stated in the legislation, but rather would result in individuals’ paying a “tax.” Paying a tax would make it, legally speaking, optional for people to comply and therefore would not violate the U.S. Constitution. (June 28, 2012)

70.) The law doesn’t mean what it says: In King v. Burwell, the court overruled the plain meaning of the ACA limiting tax credits to people living in states that created their own exchanges – cited seven times in the law – and instead allowed tax credits for insurance purchased through federally-facilitated exchanges as well. (June 25, 2015)

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far

I don't know exactly how the changes dictated by the court are incorporated in the written law but they do alter the function, which is rewriting the law. This article says the law restricted subsidizes 7 times, I've read others that said 9.


.

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

How is altering the primary way a law functions, as defined within the law, not a revision or rewrite?


.

How did Roberts alter the primary way the law functions? Be specific, what was the original text of the law and then how did Roberts change it?

I've provided citations and links multiple times, I'm not going to do it again.
A penalty becomes a tax, not eligible for a subsidy becomes eligible, if you can't understand that is altering the primary function of the law, that's on you.


.

 

[Slade3200]

This is the problem when you read opinion articles, especially biased ones. They are full of implications and often include false or misleading facts. Best to see that actual laws, texts and writings to verify the claims you read about from pundits. So far is sounds like a lot of demonizing accusations but not concrete facts to back up how everything played out.

The other question that comes from this is, does the SCOTUS have the right and power to dictate or advise about implementation of policy and law? If a law is passed and challenged can the supreme court decide and define which actions are appropriate and inappropriate under the constitution. To me, that makes sense. The notion of "precedent" based on the SCOTUS decisions is what has molded our laws and kept the implementation and execution in check. If every law that was challenged was completely overturned for minor elements that were executed unconstitutionally then it would result in a lot of chaos and gridlock, don't you think?

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

How is altering the primary way a law functions, as defined within the law, not a revision or rewrite?


.

How did Roberts alter the primary way the law functions? Be specific, what was the original text of the law and then how did Roberts change it?

I've provided citations and links multiple times, I'm not going to do it again.
A penalty becomes a tax, not eligible for a subsidy becomes eligible, if you can't understand that is altering the primary function of the law, that's on you.
.

I've read and responded to your links and citations. I've even thanked you for them. I'm asking now for something that I haven't seen. How was it written to handle the mandate "fine" and how was it changed. I'm not looking for an opinion article, i'm looking for the actual execution and text.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to point to the portions of my arguments that don't make sense, I've backed up every one of them with constitutional citations and court rulings. Would you deny that the tax for not having insurance is a direct tax, or direct taxes are constitutionally prohibited except in the case of income and would other wise be required to be assessed proportionally? I can only argue on behalf of others because I'm not subject to the tax, had I been I would have filed the case myself, I'm just surprised no one else has. Also at 66 I'm too old to go back to school, plus I'd most likely be kicked out for bitch slapping the first prof that started spewing regressive dogma.

If you're interested I can recommend a book that explains how the courts have made the US a post constitutional society. Formal education is not the only way to learn.


.

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

 

[OKTexas]

If a law is defective it is the responsibility of the legislature that passed it to fix it, not a court. It's the courts obligation to point out the defect and explain why it can't be enforced as written, is just that simple. When a judge decides it his job to repair legislation he has entered into the legislative realm and that's not his job. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 makes that clear.


.

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

How is altering the primary way a law functions, as defined within the law, not a revision or rewrite?


.

How did Roberts alter the primary way the law functions? Be specific, what was the original text of the law and then how did Roberts change it?

I've provided citations and links multiple times, I'm not going to do it again.
A penalty becomes a tax, not eligible for a subsidy becomes eligible, if you can't understand that is altering the primary function of the law, that's on you.
.

I've read and responded to your links and citations. I've even thanked you for them. I'm asking now for something that I haven't seen. How was it written to handle the mandate "fine" and how was it changed. I'm not looking for an opinion article, i'm looking for the actual execution and text.

If you can find any source that explains how exactly the decisions are incorporated you're doing better that me. I done searches 15 different ways, I'll get in touch with my lawyer friend at the congressmans office tomorrow and see if they can help with a link. So I'll get back to you then.


.

 

[Slade3200]

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

Despite all the work you have done you are not answering my questions and showing the actual text of the original law and what it was "rewritten" to. I have heard the accusation, I just want to see what ACTUALLY happened. Do you not have access to what i'm asking about?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, but in this case the court ruled that the law could be enforced under the provisions that we are discussing. That isn't rewriting the law, it is interpreting the law and drawing boundaries around how it can and can't be enforced.

How is altering the primary way a law functions, as defined within the law, not a revision or rewrite?


.

How did Roberts alter the primary way the law functions? Be specific, what was the original text of the law and then how did Roberts change it?

I've provided citations and links multiple times, I'm not going to do it again.
A penalty becomes a tax, not eligible for a subsidy becomes eligible, if you can't understand that is altering the primary function of the law, that's on you.
.

I've read and responded to your links and citations. I've even thanked you for them. I'm asking now for something that I haven't seen. How was it written to handle the mandate "fine" and how was it changed. I'm not looking for an opinion article, i'm looking for the actual execution and text.

If you can find any source that explains how exactly the decisions are incorporated you're doing better that me. I done searches 15 different ways, I'll get in touch with my lawyer friend at the congressmans office tomorrow and see if they can help with a link. So I'll get back to you then.


.

I'll dig into it as well. Its pretty crazy with all the media opinion pieces out there that we don't have easy access to the material that they all should be referencing to make their opinions. Pretty troubling if they are expressing opinion on the matter without actually reading the text of the bills and decisions. I wonder how much of this crap is one big game of telephone.

 

[Slade3200]

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

There is a process to check the Supreme court decisions and that is by making laws through congress. If our congress feels that a SC decision is not in the best interest of the people or fails to accurately regulate the intent of a law then a new law can be made to add clarity or trump precedent set forth by the court.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

There is a process to check the Supreme court decisions and that is by making laws through congress. If our congress feels that a SC decision is not in the best interest of the people or fails to accurately regulate the intent of a law then a new law can be made to add clarity or trump precedent set forth by the court.

If you read the King v. Burwell decision you'll find many congresscritters, among others were the ones challenging the administrations interpretation of the law in court.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You THINK you've proven something. And no thanks, I was doing constitutional limitations over 20 years ago. Your limitations are simply that you've never had to acknowledge other views, which is why law school would be a interesting use of your intellect.

As for me ... Obamacare is just a speedbump on the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

The supreme court needs to have a code of ethics. Every judge in the US has one, except the nine member of the supreme court. I'm opposed to having states interfere in their appointments; each justice and the chief should serve for a term of 10 years, and then once again evaluated by the Senate, which by a vote of 2/3 + 1 can end their service.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to provide other views you can back up in law or the Constitution, which are the only things judges are to consider, not redefine them on a whim or to achieve a political goal.


.

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

The supreme court needs to have a code of ethics. Every judge in the US has one, except the nine member of the supreme court. I'm opposed to having states interfere in their appointments; each justice and the chief should serve for a term of 10 years, and then once again evaluated by the Senate, which by a vote of 2/3 + 1 can end their service.

I didn't propose the States interfering in their appointments. I'm proposing the States have the ability to nullify any decision they find contrary to their best interest. Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign. They established the federal government including the federal courts by lending them certain powers possessed by the States. If the States find the feds are exceeding the powers granted, they alone should have the power to rein them in. As it is now there is no process to do that short of an amendment. My proposal would give them ongoing authority where a new amendment wouldn't be required for every occurrence and would require only a simple majority.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Judges have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of law and set precedent for the lower courts and law enforcement to use while executing their duties. This often involves explaining what actions would be considered constitutional and unconstitutional. If a law or action is deemed unconstitutional then the judges may decide to rule against the law or in favor with an explanation of what is allowed and not allowed per the constitution. We on the same page?

Also please answer my previous question about Charitable deductions, R&D tax credits, and mortgage write offs... are these also unconstitutional direct taxes in your mind?

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

The supreme court needs to have a code of ethics. Every judge in the US has one, except the nine member of the supreme court. I'm opposed to having states interfere in their appointments; each justice and the chief should serve for a term of 10 years, and then once again evaluated by the Senate, which by a vote of 2/3 + 1 can end their service.

I didn't propose the States interfering in their appointments. I'm proposing the States have the ability to nullify any decision they find contrary to their best interest. Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign. They established the federal government including the federal courts by lending them certain powers possessed by the States. If the States find the feds are exceeding the powers granted, they alone should have the power to rein them in. As it is now there is no process to do that short of an amendment. My proposal would give them ongoing authority where a new amendment wouldn't be required for every occurrence and would require only a simple majority.


.

"Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign"?

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

 

[OKTexas]

See posts 161 & 162.


.

Those were the posts that I was responding to. Feels like we hit a wall, perhaps we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. The discussion got heated and "muddy" at times but overall I appreciate the engagement. At least you did your homework and provided substance to back up your arguments rather than resorting to petty insults and personal attacks. For that I will say thank you.

Not only have I read the actual decisions, and articles on them, I've also had some pretty in depth discussions with attorneys I know on the topic, one works for a congressman. Most are just as frustrated as I that nine unelected judges have the final say with no checks or balances. That's why I advocate an amendment that would allow a majority of the States to nullify any court decision.


.

The supreme court needs to have a code of ethics. Every judge in the US has one, except the nine member of the supreme court. I'm opposed to having states interfere in their appointments; each justice and the chief should serve for a term of 10 years, and then once again evaluated by the Senate, which by a vote of 2/3 + 1 can end their service.

I didn't propose the States interfering in their appointments. I'm proposing the States have the ability to nullify any decision they find contrary to their best interest. Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign. They established the federal government including the federal courts by lending them certain powers possessed by the States. If the States find the feds are exceeding the powers granted, they alone should have the power to rein them in. As it is now there is no process to do that short of an amendment. My proposal would give them ongoing authority where a new amendment wouldn't be required for every occurrence and would require only a simple majority.


.

"Under our system the States are the ultimate sovereign"?

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

Yep, that applies only to the powers granted by the States. The States have the power to delete or revise any powers they have granted, making them the ultimate sovereign. If you doubt me, see Article 5.


.